Add Wage Override

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description explains that calling it again creates another record (non-idempotent), which aligns with idempotentHint=false. It also discloses success (returns UUID, HTTP 201) and failure modes (401, 403, 404), adding value beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is packed with useful information—purpose, defaults, idempotency, errors, required params, and endpoint—in about six sentences. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly tighter by removing the contradictory defaults note.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers success and failure behavior, required parameters, and the specific API endpoint. It does not explain the rate format or how to obtain job_title_id, but these are minor given the schema's parameter descriptions.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed descriptions for each parameter. The description adds the note that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config when omitted, which contradicts the schema marking them as required. This confusing information detracts from rather than adds meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Add a Wage Override for a specific Job Title in a Project.' It uses a specific verb (Add) and resource (Wage Override), and distinguishes from siblings like delete_wage_override by emphasizing creation and HTTP 201.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (to create a wage override) and mentions that company_id and project_id default to procore_set_config values. It does not explicitly discuss alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the create-focused language and mention of endpoint provide sufficient guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.